PDA

View Full Version : 24/192 vs. 24/96



Squeezemeister
2009-09-05, 00:57
I have an SB3. AFAIK, the DAC processes at 24/96? However, I feed the data via TOSLINK cable into my AVI ADM 9.1's, whose DAC can go to 24/192. As I am bypassing the SB DAC by connecting this way, does this mean that I can play 24/192 tracks through my AVI via my SB and get the benefit? Or are they downsampled by the SB3 anyway?

Would I even hear the difference?

Cheers

amcluesent
2009-09-05, 01:43
You won't get more than 24/48 from an SB3, even with an external DAC. Anything more gets re-sampled server-side before sending to the SB3. You need a Transporter (or Touch...) to get 24/96 on the digital-out.

>Would I even hear the difference?<

Depends on the cables. ;)

Phil Leigh
2009-09-05, 05:07
I have an SB3. AFAIK, the DAC processes at 24/96? However, I feed the data via TOSLINK cable into my AVI ADM 9.1's, whose DAC can go to 24/192. As I am bypassing the SB DAC by connecting this way, does this mean that I can play 24/192 tracks through my AVI via my SB and get the benefit? Or are they downsampled by the SB3 anyway?

Would I even hear the difference?

Cheers

Playing a true 24/192 file (downsampled via SOX on the server to 24/48 for a classic or 24/96 for a Transporter/Touch) will still provide some benefit compared to a 16/44.1 version of the same track.
Whether it's a worthwhile benefit only you can judge...

peber
2009-09-10, 01:58
A friend of mine who works in the recording business once said that the important part is to get 24 bits, sampling freq is not that critical...

/Per

dBerriff
2009-09-10, 02:37
On the basis of various Sound on Sound articles and from using my modest home studio this is my current understanding:

24 bit is worthwhile for the improved dynamic range, especially when recording. Digital overload needs to be avoided at all costs as it sounds nasty and unnatural. 24 bit makes life a lot easier when recording as you can work well below the red line and still have an adequate dynamic range for the final track.

Opinion seems divided on the sample rate but the consensus is that it is less important than 24 bit once you get above 48 kHz. Many claim to hear no difference.

The ADC and DAC chips to support the higher rates are readily available and I would guess not much more expensive now, thanks to DVD players supporting mass production to these standards. So, they get put in the studio hardware anyway.

For the replay side 24 bit is probably worth while for classical music which in reality has a huge dynamic range, but only if you have the replay system to do it justice.

For the pop/rock/indie/electronica side of things where the music is compressed and limited much of the time to a radio-friendly dynamic range and frequency balance it is not something to worry about. At least, that is my interpretation of what I have read.